radiofree.asia

Guardian ridiculed over article on the silver lining of Starmerism

On 28 October, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee published an opinion piece which drew widespread ridicule:


Is the article itself as bad as the headline?

Possibly not, but the piece is certainly emblematic of how little the centre left have to offer.

Classic Guardian

Toynbee begins her piece by saying:

What hell is the life of politics. Look around that cabinet table: each person is confronted with near impossible-portfolios without the means to do what they know is needed. After another nightmare week, many in the dark watches must ask themselves why the hell they gave their lives to this brutally thankless task.

Won’t somebody think of the ministers?

That aside, is it inevitable that politicians must be the most loathed people in the country?

It isn’t, no.

This might surprise you if you only read Polly Toynbee articles, but Mexico’s left-wing president Claudia Sheinbaum is actually very popular – something she achieved by delivering on policies which improve people’s lives.

Lower down, Toynbee says:

Would anyone else do better, or have we reached a near-ungovernable, insatiable public state of mind? Any government may be rejected just as rapidly once in power, however great its landslide victory, unless it arrives in a gilded chariot bearing untold bounty for stricken public services and empty private purses. None is on the horizon. Golden promises from parties in opposition raising wild hopes dashed in office are a dismal future for democracy, stirred by malevolent social media into perpetual angry disappointment.

She seems to be forgetting that Labour had fairly decent approval ratings when they returned to power. The reason they’ve become progressively less popular is because they’ve continuously:

When the Tories did this stuff, Toynbee wasn’t happy; when Labour do it, the ‘voters are being unfaaaaaaaair!‘

Toynbee does actually acknowledge some of what I’ve said above, noting:

Labour blundered over cuts for pensioners and disabled people, unbalanced by generosity elsewhere. Uncertain which voters to appeal to, the party has left good policies unheralded, from working rights to green investment, new towns and a youth guarantee to get young people into work and training.

The issue isn’t that Labour are doing nothing right; it’s that even when they move things in a more positive direction, it’s always a half measure at best (and usually more like a one-sixteenth measure).

They’ve refused to renationalise the water and electricity networks, for example, and have instead proposed a new regulator. At the same time, they’re continuing to privatise other areas, including what remains of the NHS.

What this means is that things aren’t getting better under Labour; they’re getting worse, just at a slower pace than under the Tories.

Muddled thinking

The most confused section of the Toynbee article is this:

Here’s ministers’ paradox: Labour’s only hope lies in despair. Assume they will be wiped out whatever, so use this massive majority for four more years to follow their natural social democratic instinct: make radical tax reforms, raising plenty. Expect to lose the next election, so do everything now. Forget opinion polls and focus groups; let voters see sincerity in their purpose. The only way to restore some respect is to do transparently what they think most right and fair.

I mean, come on.

Taxing the rich – which she seems to be suggesting here – obviously isn’t one of Starmer’s ‘natural instincts’. If it was, then why wouldn’t he do it? It’s a popular policy, so what’s stopping him?


These are the knots that writers like Toynbee have tied themselves in.

They can’t accept that they threw their weight behind a historically unpopular charlatan, so they have to concoct increasingly convoluted silver linings for the mess that Starmer has created.

Featured image via the Guardian

By Willem Moore

This post was originally published on Canary.